Houston Zoo reinstalls signs prohibiting guns

Attorney calls them provocative, says he will file a complaint.

HOUSTON — The Houston Zoo has reinstalled signs that prohibit carrying firearms into the zoo, three months after they had been removed because of a threat of legal action.

Edwin Walker, an attorney with Texas Law Shield LLP, sent a demand letter to the Houston Zoo, its corporate entity and the city’s parks and recreation department on Sept. 3 asking that they take down all signs prohibiting guns at the zoo, according to the Houston Chronicle.

Once the signs were removed, zoo staffers had said they would consult with lawyers about what their next step should be.

Houston Zoo spokeswoman Jackie Wallace said the signs were put back because the zoo is an educational institution, which exempts it from being forced to allow firearms within its gates.

Wallace said the zoo has an Education Department that employs 17 professional educators.

“After consultation with legal counsel, the Houston Zoo, Inc. has concluded that Texas government code does not prohibit HZI from lawfully posting signs that ban weapons from its premises because HZI is — at its core — an educational institution,” Wallace wrote.

Walker, who called the signs “provocative,” was notified Tuesday of the reinstallation, and the lawyer said he plans to file a complaint with the state attorney general’s office.

Walker said the zoo’s argument is flimsy because there is no curriculum, accreditation or the ability to obtain a degree at the zoo.

“This is clearly an act of desperation. They are hanging their hat on being an educational institution,” Walker said.

The signs’ initial removal incident was the first visible local example of a new state law that targets government entities illegally restricting concealed carry of guns, the Chronicle reported.

Local governments risk daily fines of up to $10,000, depending on the number of violations, if they fail to remove signage deemed illegal.

Walker said in his September letter that the zoo’s signs were in violation of a state code because, even though the zoo is privately owned, it sits on city property.